Yes I know. This is almost a rule of thumb that objections come from people who do not participate.
A proper move (better late than never)
Once someone makes his point he should refrain from repeating himself once more, twice…ad naesum (definition of troll?)
I hope others will reconsider too.
George
All is not lost I figured out snooker by watching Ronnie O'Sullivan on youtube.
Slew rate is also speed. Many things can be described as speed. And I think there is something to learn more regarding the statement. Direct and indirect effects.
Yes, yes, true, but (I) look at it from different perspective...
There is a big gap between those who understand electronics with those who can hear. Those who can hear, when they hear a 'quick' sound or snap, then 'speed' is just 'speed' not necessarily bandwidth or slew rate. Everyone is guessing and the guess from those who understand electronics is an educated guess while those from uneducated ones are just... uneducated guesses!
But the important information here is that there is a phenomenon that can be expressed as 'amplifier should have good speed to reproduce music like live music'. The gap needs to be filled if we want to find out the Physics at play.
There is a big gap between those who understand electronics with those who can hear. Those who can hear, when they hear a 'quick' sound or snap, then 'speed' is just 'speed' not necessarily bandwidth or slew rate. Everyone is guessing and the guess from those who understand electronics is an educated guess while those from uneducated ones are just... uneducated guesses!
But the important information here is that there is a phenomenon that can be expressed as 'amplifier should have good speed to reproduce music like live music'. The gap needs to be filled if we want to find out the Physics at play.
Yes the speed of a circuit goining into overload not the speed ( bandwidth ) of the circuit operating in its linear region. One does not neccessarily relate to another. Common misconception. Once again speed = bandwidth. No guessing involved. If the full power bandwidth is large enough the circuit is fast enough. Nothing else to learn but audiophoolery.
Stop guessing and learn some physics. Its all there. No guessing. And the important info once again is in my previous post.
Slew Rate | Op Amp Tutorial Calculator | Radio-Electronics.com
That SR thing is one of the hypes. 5x more than highest signal SR amplified to max peak amplitude is enough. John, please calculate 40Vpeak sine 20kHz sine max dv/dt and tell me what you got. And please do not forget that music will never have 20 kHz full amplitude. Let's avoid empty statements like someone has ability to hear and other to measure and design, as it is a complete nonsense and another marketing aid to fight against reasoning.
From wikipedia on the psychology of pseudoscience:
The psychology of pseudoscience attempts to explore and analyze pseudoscientific thinking by means of thorough clarification on making the distinction of what is considered scientific vs. pseudoscientific. The human proclivity for seeking confirmation rather than refutation (confirmation bias),[74] the tendency to hold comforting beliefs, and the tendency to overgeneralize have been proposed as reasons for pseudoscientific thinking. According to Beyerstein (1991), humans are prone to associations based on resemblances only, and often prone to misattribution in cause-effect thinking.[75]
Michael Shermer's theory of belief-dependent realism is driven by the belief that the brain is essentially a "belief engine," which scans data perceived by the senses and looks for patterns and meaning. There is also the tendency for the brain to create cognitive biases, as a result of inferences and assumptions made without logic and based on instinct — usually resulting in patterns in cognition. These tendencies of patternicity and agenticity are also driven "by a meta-bias called the bias blind spot, or the tendency to recognize the power of cognitive biases in other people but to be blind to their influence on our own beliefs."[76] Lindeman states that social motives (i.e., "to comprehend self and the world, to have a sense of control over outcomes, to belong, to find the world benevolent and to maintain one's self-esteem") are often "more easily" fulfilled by pseudoscience than by scientific information. Furthermore, pseudoscientific explanations are generally not analyzed rationally, but instead experientially. Operating within a different set of rules compared to rational thinking, experiential thinking regards an explanation as valid if the explanation is "personally functional, satisfying and sufficient", offering a description of the world that may be more personal than can be provided by science and reducing the amount of potential work involved in understanding complex events and outcomes.[77]
There is a trend to believe in pseudoscience more than scientific evidence.[78] Some people believe the prevalence of pseudoscientific beliefs is due to widespread "scientific illiteracy".[79] Individuals lacking scientific literacy are more susceptible to wishful thinking, since they are likely to turn to immediate gratification powered by System 1, our default operating system which requires little to no effort. This system encourages one to accept the conclusions they believe, and reject the ones they do not. Further analysis of complex pseudoscientific phenomena require System 2, which follows rules, compares objects along multiple dimensions and weighs options. These two systems have several other differences which are further discussed in the dual-process theory.[citation needed] The scientific and secular systems of morality and meaning are generally unsatisfying to most people. Humans are, by nature, a forward-minded species pursuing greater avenues of happiness and satisfaction, but we are all too frequently willing to grasp at unrealistic promises of a better life.[80]
Psychology has much to discuss about pseudoscience thinking, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality and effectiveness of numerous individuals that needs to be illuminated. Research suggests that illusionary thinking happens in most people when exposed to certain circumstances such as reading a book, an advertisement or the testimony of others are the basis of pseudoscience beliefs. It is assumed that illusions are not unusual, and given the right conditions, illusions are able to occur systematically even in normal emotional situations. One of the things pseudoscience believers quibble most about is that academic science usually treats them as fools. Minimizing these illusions in the real world is not simple.[81] To this aim, designing evidence-based educational programs can be effective to help people identify and reduce their own illusions.[81]
The psychology of pseudoscience attempts to explore and analyze pseudoscientific thinking by means of thorough clarification on making the distinction of what is considered scientific vs. pseudoscientific. The human proclivity for seeking confirmation rather than refutation (confirmation bias),[74] the tendency to hold comforting beliefs, and the tendency to overgeneralize have been proposed as reasons for pseudoscientific thinking. According to Beyerstein (1991), humans are prone to associations based on resemblances only, and often prone to misattribution in cause-effect thinking.[75]
Michael Shermer's theory of belief-dependent realism is driven by the belief that the brain is essentially a "belief engine," which scans data perceived by the senses and looks for patterns and meaning. There is also the tendency for the brain to create cognitive biases, as a result of inferences and assumptions made without logic and based on instinct — usually resulting in patterns in cognition. These tendencies of patternicity and agenticity are also driven "by a meta-bias called the bias blind spot, or the tendency to recognize the power of cognitive biases in other people but to be blind to their influence on our own beliefs."[76] Lindeman states that social motives (i.e., "to comprehend self and the world, to have a sense of control over outcomes, to belong, to find the world benevolent and to maintain one's self-esteem") are often "more easily" fulfilled by pseudoscience than by scientific information. Furthermore, pseudoscientific explanations are generally not analyzed rationally, but instead experientially. Operating within a different set of rules compared to rational thinking, experiential thinking regards an explanation as valid if the explanation is "personally functional, satisfying and sufficient", offering a description of the world that may be more personal than can be provided by science and reducing the amount of potential work involved in understanding complex events and outcomes.[77]
There is a trend to believe in pseudoscience more than scientific evidence.[78] Some people believe the prevalence of pseudoscientific beliefs is due to widespread "scientific illiteracy".[79] Individuals lacking scientific literacy are more susceptible to wishful thinking, since they are likely to turn to immediate gratification powered by System 1, our default operating system which requires little to no effort. This system encourages one to accept the conclusions they believe, and reject the ones they do not. Further analysis of complex pseudoscientific phenomena require System 2, which follows rules, compares objects along multiple dimensions and weighs options. These two systems have several other differences which are further discussed in the dual-process theory.[citation needed] The scientific and secular systems of morality and meaning are generally unsatisfying to most people. Humans are, by nature, a forward-minded species pursuing greater avenues of happiness and satisfaction, but we are all too frequently willing to grasp at unrealistic promises of a better life.[80]
Psychology has much to discuss about pseudoscience thinking, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality and effectiveness of numerous individuals that needs to be illuminated. Research suggests that illusionary thinking happens in most people when exposed to certain circumstances such as reading a book, an advertisement or the testimony of others are the basis of pseudoscience beliefs. It is assumed that illusions are not unusual, and given the right conditions, illusions are able to occur systematically even in normal emotional situations. One of the things pseudoscience believers quibble most about is that academic science usually treats them as fools. Minimizing these illusions in the real world is not simple.[81] To this aim, designing evidence-based educational programs can be effective to help people identify and reduce their own illusions.[81]
There are a lot to learn. Ask geniuses.
If we listen to jazz music with nice cymbals and triangles at around 3W (and we can hear 18kHz). What will be the highest frequency bandwidth at 10W power where no more increase will be audible?
Last time I calculated, my need was around 3v6/us and I ditched anything below 4 for my best system. But even tho speed is audible, its not the only measure and the condition where it is audible is not frequent so I admit that 2v can sometimes be okay.
BTW, can you explain why you need 5x when even half is often non-destructive? Is it a compromise with those who think that amplifier's SR must be at least 100V/us?
Why? Can you see an electronics expert who is so proud with his 0.00000x% THD when he cannot prove to himself that he can hear it? That's audiophoolery.
Without references to actual equipment and sensitivities the power numbers are meaningless.
Or good marketing, or an interest in pushing the boundaries for the fun of it. There is a lot of stuff done for Sh*t and giggles here. Like climbing a mountain some people will do things because they are they to be done.
Not what you said, "people who understand electronics can't hear" is what I saw in that comment.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.